Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on August 19, 20124, January 15, 2025, and October 8, 2025 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 9-12, 14, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knechtli et al. (Patent No.: US 4,494,302 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Knechtli et al. discloses a method for providing additional illumination to solar cells deployed in space (abstract), the method comprising one or more reflectors directing illumination from a light source onto the solar cells (Col. 4, L 23 -Col. 5, L 10; Fig. 2 – this prior art teaches in Section 3. “Periodically
PNG
media_image1.png
312
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annealed Solar Cell Panel Using Photo-Injection” that sun light could be used for annealing the solar cells; this prior art further teaches “… linear mirror concentrator… comprising a plurality of solar cells 20 mounted on the backs 22 of a plurality of curved mirrors 24. Incoming sunlight (rays 26) is reflected into the solar cells”).
Regarding Claim 2, Knechtli et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses the method wherein the directing step raises the temperature of the solar cells (abstract, Col. 4, L 23 - Col. 5, L 10; Fig. 2 – this prior art explicitly teaches that sunlight “directed onto the solar cells may be employed for heating the solar cells’ (abstract); it further states “… movable mirror 28 acts as a radiation shield; when in position, it blocks radiation of heat from the radiating backside surface of the mirrors, thus increasing the temperature of the solar cells”).
.
Regarding Claim 3, Knechtli et al., as applied to claim 2, discloses the method wherein the higher temperature reduces a time to anneal the solar cells and/or increase the efficiency of the solar cells (Col. 4, L 23 -Col. 5, L 10; Fig. 2 – this prior art states “… the radiator and solar cell temperature will correspondingly increase from 100.degree. C. up to about 200.degree. C. at the same heat radiation power density. This increased temperature is in the range found useful for relatively rapid combined annealing”; it further states “thermal annealing at 200.degree. C. alone was observed to bring the power output up to a level of about 75% of its original value from a level of about 50%, resulting from radiation-induced damage. Combined annealing, employing thermal annealing at 200.degree. C. in conjunction with simultaneous injection of minority carriers at a current density of 125 mA/cm.sup.2, was observed to bring the power output to a level of nearly 90%” (abstract)).
Regarding Claim 4, Knechtli et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses the method wherein the additional illumination enables the solar cells to increase their power production (Col. 4, L 23 -Col. 5, L 10; Fig. 2 – this prior art states “… the radiator and solar cell temperature will correspondingly increase from 100.degree. C. up to about 200.degree. C. at the same heat radiation power density. This increased temperature is in the range found useful for relatively rapid combined annealing”; it further states “thermal annealing at 200.degree. C. alone was observed to bring the power output up to a level of about 75% of its original value from a level of about 50%, resulting from radiation-induced damage. Combined annealing, employing thermal annealing at 200.degree. C. in conjunction with simultaneous injection of minority carriers at a current density of 125 mA/cm.sup.2, was observed to bring the power output to a level of nearly 90%” (abstract)).
Regarding Claim 5, Knechtli et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses the method wherein the directing step comprises reflecting, refracting, redirecting, directing, and/or focusing the illumination (Col. 4, L 23 -Col. 5, L 10; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Knechtli et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses the method wherein the light source is the sun (abstract).
Regarding Claim 10, Knechtli et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses the method comprising adjusting an angle and/or a position of the one or more reflectors relative to the solar cells (abstract; Col. 4, L 23 -Col. 5, L 10; Fig. 2 – implied in light of the cited disclosure).
Regarding Claim 11, Knechtli et al., as applied to claim 10, discloses the method comprising scanning the illumination across different solar cells (abstract; Col. 4, L 23 -Col. 5, L 10; Fig. 2 – implied in light of the cited disclosure; the prior art states “the solar cell panel can be divided into groups of cells, each group being attached to its own thermally independent radiator. The temperature of an individual radiator and of the corresponding group of solar cells is then increased for a limited period of time. This leads to the combined annealing of this group of cells, under the concentrated sunlight to which they are exposed”).
Regarding Claim 12, Knechtli et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses the method comprising directing the illumination to front faces or back faces of the solar cells (abstract; Col. 4, L 23 -Col. 5, L 10; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 14, Knechtli et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses the method wherein at least one of the one or more reflectors is curved (Col. 4, L 23 -Col. 5, L 10; Fig. 2 – this prior art states “a solar cell can be exposed to concentrated sunlight in a Cassegrain mirror concentrator in which the light is focussed by the secondary mirror on the solar cell attached to the front of the primary mirror”; in Cassegrain mirror concentrator the mirrors are curved) .
Regarding Claim 16, Knechtli et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses the method wherein the solar cells are disposed in one or more arrays (Col. 1, L 13-44; Col. 4, L 23 -Col. 5, L 10; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 18, Knechtli et al., as applied to claim 16, discloses the method wherein the one or more arrays comprise one or more openings (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Knechtli et al., as applied to claim 18, discloses the method comprising passing the illumination through each opening to the one or more reflectors, which direct the illumination onto back faces of the solar cells (Fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6-8, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Knechtli et al. (Patent No.: US 4,494,302 A), as applied to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, Knechtli et al., as applied to claim 1, does not explicitly disclose the method wherein the illumination is from a controlled light source.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that the method wherein the illumination is from a controlled light source, such as a laser on the ground, is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teachings well-known in the industry to adapt the method wherein the illumination of Knechtli et al. is from a controlled light source in order to establish better control over the process of restoration of solar cell efficiency.
Regarding Claim 7, Knechtli et al., as applied to claim 6, discloses the method wherein the controlled light source comprises a laser or a light- emitting diode (LED) (see rejection of claim 6 above).
Regarding Claim 8, Knechtli et al., as applied to claim 6, discloses the method wherein the controlled light source is located on a spacecraft to which the solar cells are attached, on a different spacecraft, on a free flying structure, on the ground, or on a celestial body (see rejection of claim 6 above – a laser on the ground).
Regarding Claim 13, Knechtli et al., as applied to claim 1, does not explicitly disclose the method wherein at least one of the one or more reflectors is flat.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that the method wherein at least one of the one or more reflectors is flat is well known in the art. There are concentrators which employ flat reflectors to concentrate sunlight to the solar cells. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teachings well-known in the industry to adapt the method wherein at least one of the one or more reflectors of Knechtli et al. is flat in order to concentrate light onto the solar cells in an economical way.
Regarding Claim 15, Knechtli et al., as applied to claim 1, does not explicitly disclose the method wherein the one or more reflectors are free flying.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that the method wherein the one or more reflectors are free flying is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teachings well-known in the industry to adapt the method wherein the one or more reflectors of Knechtli et al. are free flying as this type of reflectors allow more flexibility, coverage and system-level performance.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Knechtli et al. (Patent No.: US 4,494,302 A), as applied to claim 16, further in view of Goel et al. (Trajectory Design of Formation Flying Constellation for Space-Based Solar Power - 2017).
Regarding Claim 17, Knechtli et al., as applied to claim 16, does not explicitly disclose the method wherein the one or more arrays are free flying.
However, Goel et al. at least implicitly teaches the method wherein the one or more arrays are free flying (abstract; this prior art teaches collecting solar power in space and transmitting it to the earth using an array of ultra-light, membrane-like deployable modules with high efficiency photovoltaics and microwave transmission antennas embedded in the structure. Each module is 60 m × 60 m in size and in the final configuration, ~2500 of these modules form a 3 km × 3 km array in a geosynchronous orbit) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teachings of Goel et al. to adapt the method wherein the one or more arrays of Knechtli et al. are free flying as this type of configuration would allow more flexibility, and decrease launch mass constraints.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fang et al. (Patent No.: US 3,597,281 A) – This prior art teaches a method for providing additional illumination to solar cells deployed in space (abstract), the method comprising abstract; Col. 4, L 15 – 71; Claim 1; Figs. 1-4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED I GHEYAS whose telephone number is (571)272-0592. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Britt Hanley, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3042. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
08/19/2026
/SYED I GHEYAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights